Tuesday, October 28, 2008

Terrorists Are New-Age Pirates

The threat of piracy, armed robbery and terrorism on the high seas ─ especially off the coast of Somalia and in the Malacca Straits ─ are real 21st-century realities. Today, 30 percent of liquefied petroleum gas, 40 percent of commodities and 50 percent of the world’s oil production are shipped through these vital waterways.

The 21st-century war on terrorism is very similar to the 19th-century war against piracy that resulted in colonialism. Again, it was America that initiated the first campaign against pirates in the 19th century.

In the 18th century, most civilized states accepted the Roman law definition of pirates as “enemies of the human race.” By the end of the century, the rulers of Algiers, Tunis and Tripoli had become notorious for harboring pirates, and engaging in piracy and the slave trade in whites, chiefly captured seamen. European countries found it easier to ransom these unfortunates rather than go to war. Admiral Horatio Nelson, commanding the British Mediterranean fleet, was forbidden to carry out reprisals. “My blood boils,” he wrote, “that I cannot chastise these pirates.”

By contrast, America was determined to do so. Pirates were the main reason Congress established a navy in 1794. In 1805, U.S. Marines marched across the desert from Egypt, forcing the Pasha of Tripoli to sue for peace and surrender all American captives – an exploit recalled by lyrics from the U.S. Marine Corps Hymn: “From the halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli.” America followed up on its bold initiatives in Tripoli in 1815 when Commodores Stephen Decatur and William Bainbridge led successful operations against all three of the Barbary states, as they were called. This shamed the British into taking action themselves, and the following year Admiral Lord Exmouth subjected Algiers to what was then the fiercest naval bombardment in history. However, these victories were ephemeral. The beys repudiated the treaties they were obliged to sign as soon as American and British ships disappeared over the horizon. Something America and Britain forgot when they forced Saddam Hussein to surrender after the first Gulf War.

It was the French who took the logical step, in 1830, of not only storming Algiers but of conquering the whole country. France eventually annexed Algeria and settled 1 million colonists there. It solved the Tunis piracy problem by turning Tunisia into a protectorate, a model it later followed in Morocco. Spain also digested bits of the Barbary Coast, followed by Italy, which overthrew the Pasha of Tripoli and created Libya. Tangiers, another nuisance, was ruled by a four-power European commission.

In the 19th century, as today, civilized countries tried to put down piracy by organizing coalitions of local rulers who had been victimized. Arabia and the Persian Gulf were a patchwork of small states, some of which were controlled by criminal tribes that practiced caravan robbing on land and piracy at sea. Pirate sheiks were protected by the Wahhabis, forebearers of the present rulers of Saudi Arabia. Sound familiar?

Friday, October 17, 2008

Presidential Death and Political Revolution

A repeated disturbing politically incorrect conversation I either heard or participated in during my 2008 summer-fall pre-election visit to the U.S. was of the death in office of the next president. President McCain of natural causes, but President Obama by assassination. The belief by so many Americans that both McCain and Obama could die in office caught me off-guard ─ and was frankly, revolting and offensive.

I can understand and accept the reality of McCain’s age and ill health and the concern, fear and embarrassment the thought of President Sarah Palin evokes. It is therefore no surprise that Obama, for numerous rational core competitive reasons, is starting to pull ahead of McCain in the polls. He is not only more qualified to lead the country out of the economic, financial and military quagmire it is in, but has a seasoned vice president.

The fact that people at Palin rallies yell out “Kill Him” without being reprimanded by the candidate and that so many Americans take it for granted that “That One” will be assassinated if elected president because America “really” isn’t ready for a black president is not only offensive ─ but suicidal thinking.

Suicidal because a 21st-century political assassination in America in the 20th-century mold of the Martin Luther King, John and Bobby Kennedy assassinations, will plunge America into a political revolution the likes of which America has not seen since the founding of the Republic.

The fact is, America has failed to come to terms with its continuously changing cultural, economic and religious fabric. Mythology replaced reality. Spirituality has failed to keep up with technology. Debt has consumed equity. America has undergone a tremendous transformation since the Pilgrims landed. America has changed from vanilla WASP to Cherry Garcia white patched butterfly, with butterfly ballots. Or is it a multicultural scoop of Ooey Gooey cake? Apple pie America is a racial blender of caramelized apple. Senator Barack Obama is a representative of what America is and has to be accepted and supported as such if elected president. There is no room for discussions or thoughts of anything else.

Friday, October 10, 2008

China Bashing

Presidential candidates Senators John McCain and Barack Obama have both taken political swipes at China in recent answers they gave to questions submitted to them by the American Chamber of Commerce in Beijing and published in the chamber magazine. Surprisingly, the candidates were not asked during their first presidential debate to comment on how they propose to deal with China. Surprising, because China is the scapegoat blamed for everything wrong with America. It is a convenient political football. In the vice presidential debate that followed, China was blamed for causing global warming and pollution. The fact that America is the biggest emitter of carbons was conveniently overlooked. Both presidential candidates did however take a swipe at China during their second debate. That is not surprising.

China is the villain that keeps the value of the yuan artificially low to maintain a trade advantage over U.S.-based manufacturers, and it caused the higher prices for raw materials, including oil, increased exports of cheap manufactured goods that have condemned America’s work force to redundancy because of outsourcing, and global warming.

Congress also wants to impose sanctions on China for its successive inclusion since 1999 on a U.S. blacklist of “severe” religious freedom violators.

U.S. politicians habitually make sure that whatever blame is directed their way for their “voodoo economics” is deflected and redirected at China ─ especially during the current financial meltdown and recession. The rise of protectionist sentiment in America over the trade deficit with China could have devastating consequences on the global economy. Quotas on textiles and televisions from China will not save U.S. jobs. The quotas will only increase imports from other low-cost manufacturing centers that have lost market share to China. This will raise the prices paid by U.S. consumers. The fact is affordable Chinese textiles and goods are an integral piece of fabric of the American lifestyle. If the U.S. insists on messing with Chinese currency and quotas, Americans will end up wandering around like the Timorese ─ the poorest people on earth.

America seems to have forgotten a certain 1980s Japan trade history lesson. Japanese low-cost, fuel-efficient cars terrified Detroit so much in the ‘80s that they U.S. automakers persuaded Congress to impose quotas on them. The Japanese then started to make luxury cars that are far more profitable. The result is that Japan’s Infinitis, Lexus and other luxury makes ─ along with their low-cost, fuel-efficient cars ─ have almost bankrupted the Detroit automakers and their part suppliers who once dominated the luxury market.

China bashing, sanctions and quotas will not help America’s fast melting economy recover. On the contrary, it will only expedite the current economic and financial meltdown should China decide to retaliate by dumping its dollars and treasuries ─ especially now that America is insisting on going ahead with the sale of military weapons to Taiwan.

Wednesday, October 01, 2008

Religious Constitutional Suicide Pact

On Sunday September 28, 2008, 33 evangelical Protestant pastors, including the vice presidential candidate on the American Independent Party ticket, in 22 states launched a “pulpit initiative” in hopes of influencing the presidential election. The initiative was conceived by Arizona based Alliance Defense Fund which hoped to overturn the Internal Revenue Code’s ban on political endorsements by tax-exempt organizations, including churches. The pastors argued that the ban ─ originally sponsored by then-Texas Sen. Lyndon Johnson in 1954 ─violates the clergy’s first amendment rights to both free speech and free expression of religion. The pastors endorsed Sen. John McCain for president hoping the IRS will try and revoke their tax exempt status so they can challenge the law all the way to the Supreme Court. They believe the court’s conservative justices will hold the ban on political endorsements unconstitutional.

The pastors and their lawyers are wrong on their history and the law. The Founding Fathers were clear that America’s notion of religious liberty intended to prohibit the state from dictating the content of religious convictions. Preachers may preach on God and country, on war and peace, but they must not endorse candidates for political office if they want to retain their tax exempt status. As Christ enjoined: “Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s.” Elsewhere in the Bible Jesus said “My kingdom is not of this world,” an example his evangelical pastors should follow. Jesus and the Founding Fathers saw the value in the separation of church and state which prevents the suppression of religion by the state and ensures that our civil institutions do not favor one faith over another.

Under today’s Constitution and tax code, churches that have accepted the exemption also have accepted the prohibition against endorsements, and must faithfully abide by them. I support organizations like Americans United for Separation of Church and State that have made it their mission to report churches that preach politics to the I.R.S. The Alliance Defense Fund and its lawyers should be prosecuted and indicted by the I.R.S.’s Office of Professional Responsibility for inducing churches to engage in conduct designed to violate federal tax law in a direct and blatant manner.

The concept of separation of church and state as we know it will be in tatters if preachers with tax exempt status start preaching and advocating their political beliefs at taxpayer expense.
Web Counter
Website Counter